Roblimo wrote I've never understood how anyone could have gall enough to patent a gene they merely discovered and didn't create.
The thing is that they patent the application of what a gene express. So for example, it is believed that leptin is involved in the metabolic system and therefore could be used in defeating obesity. The gene is not patented but the idea of using it as a medicin is.
This is a practice that has been going on for quite a while if I have understood things. In medicine, you can not patent a surgical method, but if that method needs a special tool, you can patent it.
In my mind, there is some justification for "patenting a gene" if a company has had to shell out significant amounts of money and time to develop a cure based on a well known substance, but what has started now is no more than an industrial patenting. Apparently, many "gene patent" applications from Celera are based on predicted expression and function of a gene. Once you have the data, it is not that hard (although it is a major research field) to come up with a prediction that could obstruct others from using the gene.
Celera has sworn to make all data they produce public after while (letting their customers get first dibs in the data), so that is not what the Human Genom project is most worried about. The reason they try to make their data public within 24 hours is that they too make predictions on function in order to prevent more patents based on predictions.
Esp in Finland, I believe that 80% of Finland has a cellphone as their ONLY phone.
That is not true. They are coming close (if they have not already passed) to having 50 % of the population having cell phones. (The same goes for Sweden btw.) I recall reading something from Israel though, where the prices for cell phones (including subscriber fees et.c.) were so competative that many people got a cell phone instead of a regular phone. I don't know how true that is though.
So, did the guy know he was doing something bad, but thought that the technical facts about the Internet would mean he couldn't be caught for it? If yes, then guilty he is.
According to an interview today, he had been warned twice by IFTI (or whatever). He thought the first warning was a joke by someone, but he took the second warning serious---he moved his site abroad...
I think he is guilty of being stupid. There is definately a gray zone here, but if you are asked to remove your links because you are doing damage then I think you have an obligation to do so.
Not knowing too much about how NNTP works, but it seems to me to be doing just about what the patent claims. The control structure in this case would be my.newsrc for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Roblimo wrote I've never understood how anyone could have gall enough to patent a gene they merely discovered and didn't create.
The thing is that they patent the application of what a gene express. So for example, it is believed that leptin is involved in the metabolic system and therefore could be used in defeating obesity. The gene is not patented but the idea of using it as a medicin is.
This is a practice that has been going on for quite a while if I have understood things. In medicine, you can not patent a surgical method, but if that method needs a special tool, you can patent it.
In my mind, there is some justification for "patenting a gene" if a company has had to shell out significant amounts of money and time to develop a cure based on a well known substance, but what has started now is no more than an industrial patenting. Apparently, many "gene patent" applications from Celera are based on predicted expression and function of a gene. Once you have the data, it is not that hard (although it is a major research field) to come up with a prediction that could obstruct others from using the gene.
Celera has sworn to make all data they produce public after while (letting their customers get first dibs in the data), so that is not what the Human Genom project is most worried about. The reason they try to make their data public within 24 hours is that they too make predictions on function in order to prevent more patents based on predictions.
Lars
Esp in Finland, I believe that 80% of Finland has a cellphone as their ONLY phone.
That is not true. They are coming close (if they have not already passed) to having 50 % of the population having cell phones. (The same goes for Sweden btw.) I recall reading something from Israel though, where the prices for cell phones (including subscriber fees et.c.) were so competative that many people got a cell phone instead of a regular phone. I don't know how true that is though.
Lars
So, did the guy know he was doing something bad, but thought that the technical facts about the Internet would mean he couldn't be caught for it? If yes, then guilty he is.
According to an interview today, he had been warned twice by IFTI (or whatever). He thought the first warning was a joke by someone, but he took the second warning serious---he moved his site abroad...
I think he is guilty of being stupid. There is definately a gray zone here, but if you are asked to remove your links because you are doing damage then I think you have an obligation to do so.
Not knowing too much about how NNTP works, but it seems to me to be doing just about what the patent claims. The control structure in this case would be my .newsrc for instance.
Would some expert care to comment?
Lars